ORDER :

1. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking quashment of entire proceedings drawn in M.J.C. No. 75/2022 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that Respondent has filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “Act of 2005”). Application was filed on 22.12.2021 after about more than 1½ years of leaving her matrimonial home. Application is not maintainable against father-in-law and brother-in-law where the husband of Respondent No. 1 died earlier. Application is barred by limitation as provided under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. as there was no relationship of respondents with petitioners after they left matrimonial house in the month of July, 2020. He contended that the application if any under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 ought to have been filed within one year from the date of leaving the house. He also pointed out that the petitioners have already filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Bilaspur in M.J.C. No. 404/2020 against Respondent No. 1 and therefore application under Section 12 would not be maintainable.

3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and also perused the documents placed on record.

4. Sofar as, the first submission of learned counsel for petitioners with regard to limitation is concerned, in the application under Section 12 of the Act of 2005, respondent has pleaded that after death of her husband on 10.04.2020, she returned to her parents house in the month of July 2020 on account of ill-treatment and treating them with cruelty. Petitioners have stopped monthly amount which was being deposited in the account of respondent No. 1 and in the month of November 2020 when she went in the shared household, she was ousted and this application is filed on 22.12.2021. As argued by the counsel for petitioner with respect to the relief sought in the application would not be applicable as the petitioners have sought relief under Section 20(3), 18, 19 and 22 under which no punishment is provided.

5. Sofar as, the other submission made by the learned counsel for petitioners that the application against the father-in-law and brother-in-law will not be maintainable is concerned, Section 2(a) of the Act of 2005 defines “aggrieved person” and Section 2(f) provides for “domestic relationship” which read as under:

“2. Definitions - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.

(b) xxx xxx xxx

(c) xxx xxx xxx

(d) “custody order” means an order granted in terms of section 21.

(e) xxx xxx xxx

(f) “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.”

6. In the pleadings, respondent has specifically pleaded that the family was a joint family and were also engaged in the business along with her husband late Sunil Agrawal jointly and the domestic violence as alleged in the application while respondent was residing in a joint family. Hence, in view of the provision under Section 2(a) and 2(f), respondent no. 1 is aggrieved person and the petitioners are covered under Section 2(d) of the Act of 2005. The other submission of learned counsel for petitioner that as the Respondent has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance is concerned, Section 26 of the Act of 2005 provides for relief in other suits and legal proceedings. In the aforesaid provision, it grants opportunity to seek relief in any other proceedings for the relief available under Section 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 before a civil cou